A new study suggests that while splitting US military resources and focus is a problem, it’s a manageable one. That’s because the American forces needed to stop a Chinese fleet in the Strait of Taiwan are not the same as those suitable for destroying Russian tanks on the European steppe.
“For example, it is unclear whether armor and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) have as much utility in a Sino-American conflict — a primarily maritime theatre — as they do in Europe (although both capabilities have a role in each theatre),” wrote analyst Sidharth Kaushal in a report for the Royal United Services Institute.
America has had to cope with the dichotomy between the Atlantic and the Pacific since World War II. In that war, the European theater was a ground conflict fought between huge mechanized armies and hordes of land-based aircraft, albeit with a smaller naval component in the sea battle to resupply Britain. The Pacific theater was a naval and air conflict fought among scattered islands, which put a premium on aircraft carriers, submarines and mobile amphibious units such as the US Marine Corps.
Compounding the problem is that modern armies and weapons are expensive. The US could afford to fight a two-front war in 1941. Building a military sufficient to simultaneously defend Taiwan and Europe today would be ruinous, one of the many reasons the US maintains strong alliances in both regions. To be sure, the US backs Taiwan’s independent government, but it’s unclear whether it would commit forces to Taiwan’s defense.
However, Kaushal believes that the problem may be manageable by focusing on a couple of key variables. In particular, the success of an invasion of Taiwan depends upon China’s ability to achieve sufficient air and naval superiority to protect the amphibious fleet ferrying assault troops and the logistics they depend upon.
